The Easton Town Council is considering changes to its zoning ordinance to allow construction of multifamily housing in new developments with less public review.
Ordinance 803 would allow certain middle housing types to be built “of right”. These housing types include “cottage court”, “fourplex stacked”, townhouse,” triplex stacked,” mansion apartment,” and “courtyard building.” It would not change the status quo for single family homes or multifamily apartment complexes.
This change to “Permitted” uses will provide very limited review by the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed use falls within numerical standards. Currently middle housing units require a “special exception” and face much more rigorous review by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in which the public can comment, call witnesses, and introduce other evidence.
Easton needs housing that more residents can afford. Middle housing could be part of the solution. But housing must be compatible with the surrounding community. Middle housing options vary widely from more familiar types, especially single -family homes. Allowing them as a “permitted” option places too much trust on the developer’s appreciation of the community’s character, its heritage, and values. Ensuring that alternatives are compatible with the surrounding community is difficult without looking at the existing locations and designs.
The Planning Commission meetings are structured in a way that makes it difficult to resolve the issues that arise when mixing middle housing with existing neighborhoods. After lengthy developer presentations, residents are allowed only 3 minutes to comment. The BZA is better suited to decide these issues. BZA hearings allow more thorough presentations by residents. Evidence is produced under oath. Specific findings are required, including that “the proposed use will not adversely affect the established character of the areas.”
As Easton adds housing, ensuring the pieces fit together requires more scrutiny, not less. This matter will likely be considered by The Council on 1/2 or 1/16. We strongly urge rejection of Ordinance 803. A NO vote will retain the requirement that any developer prove to the BZA that middle housing will not harm the established character of the neighborhood. Neighbors – please let your Council Member hear from you – ask them to vote “no” to keep our voices part of this process. Write them at [email protected]
Julie Susman, President
Talbot Preservation Alliance
Chip Heartfield says
Thank you for pointing out the potential for harmful impact on the character of existing, especially single-family, neighborhoods. So that people truly understand – imagine if the home next to yours is sold, torn down and replaced by a “fourplex stacked,” meaning a building containing four apartment units where there was one home before. That is four or more cars where there was one or two, the potential for more children in school zones drawn based on that area being single-family, more delivery trucks, less green space and so on. And you would have almost no say. It is one thing (and a good thing if folks are in agreement BEFORE they invest in a lifetime home) to establish middle-housing rules in newly-developed communities, but it is not right to IMPOSE this change on homeowners who chose to live in single-family communities and not in denser areas and whose home is likely their single biggest investment. We need more affordable housing, absolutely, but please do not arbitrarily convert long-established neighborhoods into something altogether different, more crowded and with far less green space.
Joyce DeLaurentis says
I whole-heartedly agree.
Brad Hopkins says
The housing shortage referred to here seems to be one created by our friends at the Preservation Alliance.
To be clear, with dozens of vacant lots in Town and no creative tax/zoning program to stimulate the development thereof as well as an attitude regarding ADUs (auxillary dwelling units) that reeks of “NIMBY”, the Alliance just keeps shooting itself in the foot.
The fix is plain to see; stimulate ADUs aggressively and build on all the vacant lots, relaxing many of the “rules” getting in the way which are making it such a hassle to turn one’s garage into a “InLaw Suite”. Otherwise known as a rent-producing structure.
If you’re an individual or organization who is genuinely “no growth” or NIMBY, as many are, then just own it and say so. Stop hiding behind fancy words and phrases like preservation, neighborhood character, heritage and historic district.
Solving this housing shortage means creating lots more “dwelling units” in the infill parts of Easton. You know … where everyone wants to live.
I hope our new Mayor has the foresight and courage to stand up to the NIMBYs and get the job done. More dwellings … quickly please.
Jane Bollman says
The Talbot Preservation Alliance does not oppose the infill housing proposed. It’s position is that requiring proper scrutiny of plans that the Board of Zoning Appeals can apply will allow for better outcomes.
William Ilicker says
If you don’t oppose more attainable housing why wouldn’t you want it to be as easy as possible to create more of it within established municipalities?